MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301742399 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.1.53

Doomsday America

2011· article· en· W2301742399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Walliss, James Aston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHollywoodMovie theaterPessimismPoliticsAgency (philosophy)AestheticsRepresentation (politics)ZombieHistoryLiteratureTRACE (psycholinguistics)Media studiesSociologyArtPolitical scienceArt historySocial scienceLawPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we discuss the cycle of apocalypse films released in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, examining the ways in which they conveyed a variety of post-9/11 fears and concerns around issues such as the War on Terror, American imperialism and the environment. In particular, we will trace the continuities and discontinuities with similar disaster/apocalyptic films released in the late 1990s, tracking the representations of four thematic elements that permeate through both pre-millennium and post-9/11 apocalyptic Hollywood cinema: the representation of the apocalypse; the role of human agency as saviour; the role of religion; and socio-political commentary made by the films. In doing so, we argue that cinematic representations of the apocalypse have been much more pessimistic post-9/11, thus demonstrating that Hollywood science fiction, or “sci-fi,” can facilitate wider socio-political concerns while continuing to provide the expected spectacular, audio-visual displays.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207